About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
dpw. i see sfmta as well as tjpa. then i see a small nonprofit group. is there some kind of weighting of the scores or is everyone on equal footing in this application process? >> [speaker not understood] actually have to be an eligible applicant to apply. you have to have what's called a cooperative master agreement in place with the state department of transportation. this particular nonprofit does not have that agreement, so, their project would need to be sponsored by an agency that does have this agreement, mta, dpw, the port. >> right. >> dph. we have been working with this agency, the executive director of api and also the mta, to figure out what's the best way to move the scope of this project further either integrating it into mt's existing old program curriculum and outreach, or whether there needs to be a stand alone project. we're also in communication with dph on this issue. we're trying to figure out what's the best way to move this project forward. >> okay, good, i'm glad to hear [speaker not understood]. i'm under the impression apri has reached out to dpw to work as c
in the best position because you are involved through the planning process or the dbi process that came to dpw because of this problem, but it seems like an odd situation. >> you are quite correct, supervisor wiener. it is a very odd situation because the inform we were provided initially from a 2010 survey showed the historic property line. okay, and what happened is again back in 2000 a portion of that was transferred, acquired and transferred to the city as right of way and that was not identified in the map. so it appears to be some form of error that happened at that stage that really no one caught on the development team. >> thank you. >> thank you. so there is no one from planing that's here and let's open this up for public comment if there are no other questions. supervisor wiener. >> yeah, i mean i'd be a bit uncomfortable acting on this without getting more information from planning and dbi, but i'm curious to hear public comments. >> and i'll just say up front as well that it's a confusing case, especially that we don't have planning here to explain more and i realize that even
inclined to request that dpw and planning come back, that we reject this resolution and that they come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. i think that might be the best alternative course of action which you have outlined today here at the podium. so, mr. chair, i don't know if there's any more -- looks like supervisor wiener wants --. >> if we were, if the board was to reject the major encroachment are they able, i assume they could, if they wanted to, try to apply again in the future? >> yes, the applicant can reapply at some point in the future but normally on these rejections i believe they cannot reapply for one year. it still creates this problem where the building i believe was never final. they have a temporary certificate of occupancy that they are currently sitting on. i don't know right now. again, i leave that to the building department. from my understanding, based upon what the public have stated, that there are actually people residing in this building. >> and any negotiations to purchase the right of way that's been encroached on, that would
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)